Because some of us - self included - worked with upside down images because we had to, seems to be no reason to pretend that we would choose to so do had we the choice of either on the same camera.

Take a peep at Albert Watson on location: one of the world's best snappers, and he delights in using a converting device to get life at the ground glass back to as near normal as possible...

I realised some time ago (aren't I quick!) that some here delight in taking a poke at FredBGG regardless of whatever he writes. It seems to me that there have been so many burned fingertips (or it that wallets?) that the whole MFD subject has become rather painful and anyone who brings it up in a less than positively confirming way has to be kicked into silence. Some would say, that's bullying; writing about a system failure is not.

Insofar as screens in daylight are concerned, when I first got my Samsung Galaxy Ace I thought it had broken;: the friggin' screen was black in the Mallorcan sunlight. Only when I went back indoors to make the call I couldn't make outside did I realise that the screen was perfectly functional (within its severe limitations), and that daylight is simply too bright for the system. I have seen any number of spoiled brats running around café patios here, banging these larger, confounded 'pads or tablets into people or onto tables - almost as bad as those with bloody plastic footballs! What are these idiotic parents thinking about? Buying love instead of giving it? Why does a nine-year-old need such a device?

As for taking pictures with my cellphone - I miss shots because I can't see the limits of the frame as often as I hit them. As you can imagine, this island crawls with tourists, and I see my own difficulty repeated time after time: folks stand there, arms stretched, squinting. And the irony? They probably think it's their fault they chop heads or feet... you can sell anything. Obviously.

Pixel Qi make very nice sunlight-readable screens.Don't expect them on a phone or on a camera though, that would be innovation.

I think the problem with those, at least earlier, was that they are quite slow, i e good for reading books, but unusable for watching video (or live view), and perhaps frustrating for scrolling around on a image preview? I'm not sure what the current status of these screens are though.

The "Toughlet" http://toughlet.com/ (found via http://pixelqi.com/devices ) looks like it could be something for the field-working landscape photographer. But then the IQ260 WiFi gotta get support for Android... I doubt Apple will ever make anything hardened in tablet space (okay I confess, I like to bash Apple products).

Anyone with half a brain will tell you that it's easier to compose the image when it's not upside down. I shot for years on 8x10 and I can assure you that composint upside down does not have any advantages.....

There is no need to assure me. If composing inverted and reversed does not help you then more power to you. However, your opinion, unfortunately presented as fact, patently is not shared by others, Joe Cornish likely being one.

Quote from: FredBGG

As far as keeping your battery going in cold weather... yes you can keep it under your coat, but when you need to use it the battery that is very large and really thin right up against the back cover of the tablet it will go to hell remarkably quickly.

We apparently referred to different batteries: you to the iPad and I to the camera. No matter.

Quote from: FredBGG

... the guy in thr video is using tipless gloves...

What is wrong with tipless gloves?

Quote from: FredBGG

This WiFi functionality and tablet image review with the IQ2 and DSLRs is very useful, but it's not always the lovely experience they make it out to be.

It's a marketing video. What did you expect? Joe Cornish did not claim image review by tablet to always be a "lovely experience".

Quote from: FredBGG

What would be nice is a case/loup finder for high defenition small tablets like the iPad mini...Once you put your eyes into it all other light is locked out. Looked huge when looking through it.

Loupes that block extraneous light and make the view appear very large to the eye have been around for years. They can be used against the LCD of a digital back. An iPad is not required to review landscape images critically.

With respect to your post in which you provide images of a female viewing an iPad, your proof can be dismissed out of hand because the camera does not share the same view as the female.

I'm starting to wonder if either can sensibly exist. I used to swear by Nikon and now find myself just as likely to swear at Nikon. Canon I never fancied, so can't comment.

In a tiny nutshell, I think all these new cameras/novelties are flying on wings and prayers, the makers hanging on to stay just ahead of the punters. I imagine that one fine day the mass of shooters is going to wake up and think: hey, my pics are perfectly okay as is; why should I spend more? Even if it is deductible, there comes a time when dumping something that might actually be working well is a risk too far.

In the case of the current reviewer with an elastic wallet, there may yet turn out to be a Lysistrata factor rearing its delightful head. Someone has to take a stand. My sympathy would lie with the lady.

I like FredBGG's posts. He is very enthusiastic and shares his experience and some of the finest images posted in this forum. In recent times I tend to share only snippy remarks.

His point that an upside down or mirrored image is bad for compositing I can't support. I always liked to see the real image with my eye (one eye closed) and a mirrored or upside down image in the camera to have a control.

Sorry Fred but in this case Leonardo da Vinci made the point. A long time ago he wrote:"When you are painting you should take a flat mirror and often look at your work within it, and it will then be seen in reverse, and will appear to be by the hand of some other master, and you will be better able to judge of its faults than in any other way."

I like FredBGG's posts. He is very enthusiastic and shares his experience and some of the finest images posted in this forum. In recent times I tend to share only snippy remarks.

His point that an upside down or mirrored image is bad for compositing I can't support. I always liked to see the real image with my eye (one eye closed) and a mirrored or upside down image in the camera to have a control.

Sorry Fred but in this case Leonardo da Vinci made the point. A long time ago he wrote:"When you are painting you should take a flat mirror and often look at your work within it, and it will then be seen in reverse, and will appear to be by the hand of some other master, and you will be better able to judge of its faults than in any other way."

Anyway, I like your posts Fred, don't stop.

Best,Johannes

I used to take off my glasses and look blurry eyed at the set, just for light and form. Sarah Moon does this as well.

The claims in your own marketing materials are serious business. You aren't selling gum.

Fair point, but advertising is advertising. Whether for a stick of gum, a car, or an airplane.

We spend a lot of our time encouraging/accompanying/enabling our customers to evaluate equipment by their own hands on testing in situations as close to their real-world use as possible. If you watch an ad for a Porche deftly handling tight corners they are referencing a very real advantage of the car, but they probably won't go out of their way to mention that it requires a good driver, and preferably clean dry roads to handle at maximum performance. You'd want to take a test drive, and drive it like you like to drive, and see how it handles technically and how it feels in practice. Fred's post is the equivalent of quibbling that Porche doesn't spent time in every advertisement discussing environmental factors which keep you from hitting doing a hair-pin turn on a wet dirty road.

I don't expect (nor would I want) any customer to make a 40k purchase based only on looking at advertisements.

Fair point, but advertising is advertising. Whether for a stick of gum, a car, or an airplane.

We spend a lot of our time encouraging/accompanying/enabling our customers to evaluate equipment by their own hands on testing in situations as close to their real-world use as possible. If you watch an ad for a Porche deftly handling tight corners they are referencing a very real advantage of the car, but they probably won't go out of their way to mention that it requires a good driver, and preferably clean dry roads to handle at maximum performance. You'd want to take a test drive, and drive it like you like to drive, and see how it handles technically and how it feels in practice. Fred's post is the equivalent of quibbling that Porche doesn't spent time in every advertisement discussing environmental factors which keep you from hitting doing a hair-pin turn on a wet dirty road.

I don't expect (nor would I want) any customer to make a 40k purchase based only on looking at advertisements.

All I can say is that it was me doing the video and from what I saw the device worked fine. Perhaps it won't in some conditions but it did in these. Is it perfect? No. Would it be better with holding your coat around it occasinally? yes. Is it potentially useful? yes..

As for batteries - I get as long a life out of the ipad as I do out of my iPhone. Both crap but then I wouldn't leave the iPad on all the time if I was using it to review shots and if I was using it 'professionally' I'd have an external battery to top it up when I wasn't using it.

So, if you want to take lots of pictures in cold weather and bright sunshine then you'd best carry a spare battery and a dark cloth :-)

Looking at pictures upside down? I know a lot of people who swear by it and some who don't. Being able to see the picture upside down and the right way round lets you do it either way so I don't see a problem?

I like FredBGG's posts. He is very enthusiastic and shares his experience and some of the finest images posted in this forum. In recent times I tend to share only snippy remarks.

His point that an upside down or mirrored image is bad for compositing I can't support. I always liked to see the real image with my eye (one eye closed) and a mirrored or upside down image in the camera to have a control.

Sorry Fred but in this case Leonardo da Vinci made the point. A long time ago he wrote:"When you are painting you should take a flat mirror and often look at your work within it, and it will then be seen in reverse, and will appear to be by the hand of some other master, and you will be better able to judge of its faults than in any other way."

Anyway, I like your posts Fred, don't stop.

Best,Johannes

I agree with Leonardo Da Vinci. Looking at an image framed in a mirror and reversed. It does several things. It frames the composition and puts it on a different focus plane thus simulating a framed painting.By reversing the image (mirror image) not upside down it gives the image a sort of detachment from the scene in front of the painter.Leonardo never suggested flipping things upside down... something I'm sure he could have figured out.I also saw a sketch of a viewing method he used with two mirror to frame the image, but not reverse it.My office was just up the street from his museum in Milan and across the street from the Last Super.

I agree with Leonardo Da Vinci. Looking at an image framed in a mirror and reversed. It does several things. It frames the composition and puts it on a different focus plane thus simulating a framed painting.By reversing the image (mirror image) not upside down it gives the image a sort of detachment from the scene in front of the painter.Leonardo never suggested flipping things upside down... something I'm sure he could have figured out.I also saw a sketch of a viewing method he used with two mirror to frame the image, but not reverse it.My office was just up the street from his museum in Milan and across the street from the Last Super.

Which just goes to show that even experts sometimes pick the wrong tools/medium...

Looking at an image framed in a mirror and reversed. It does several things.

Work for hours at a time on a painting and it's likely you will be seeing what it is you want to see rather than what is actually there. The main benefit of viewing an image in a mirror is to achieve a sense of detachment. Viewing the image reversed snaps you back to reality. It can be quite shocking but is a very useful technique. It's a similar experience to working all day on a painting and then viewing afresh the next morning; often a humbling experience.

...Work for hours at a time on a painting and it's likely you will be seeing what it is you want to see rather than what is actually there. The main benefit of viewing an image in a mirror is to achieve a sense of detachment. Viewing the image reversed snaps you back to reality. It can be quite shocking but is a very useful technique. It's a similar experience to working all day on a painting and then viewing afresh the next morning; often a humbling experience...

This raises an interesting point. Does anyone reverse or flip their photo in PS to do something similar?